|
The Dark Project posted:Article about the hold-outs at the refuge has a great line from Fry's Dad - If my son did anything like this ever I would disown him publicly and contact him only to instruct him to kill himself.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
The Dark Project posted:What was that poo poo being said about John Brown ruining the country? He murdered states rights, basically
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:He murdered states rights, basically And here I thought he just killed slave owners with a sword. The man truly was a hero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:And here I thought he just killed slave owners with a sword. Anytime someone says states rights in that context, it's a dogwhistle for "I want to own a human"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
gently caress, I hate humanity sometimes, I really do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
I want Teddy Roosevelt to come back from the dead and deal with these fuckers with his bare hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I want William Tecumseh Sherman to come back from the dead and deal with these fuckers with however he sees fit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Anytime someone says states rights in that context, it's a dogwhistle for "I want to own a human" "States' rights to do what, precisely?" is always the important question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Entropic posted:"States' rights to do what, precisely?" is always the important question. Then they usually admit that the issue was ultimately slavery but that it was the states' rights to decide whether slavery should be legal or not, and that therefore the war was fought to protect states' rights. And they'd be right, if not for the fact that the constitution of the Confederacy explicitly prohibited any state therein from abolishing slavery on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:Then they usually admit that the issue was ultimately slavery but that it was the states' rights to decide whether slavery should be legal or not, and that therefore the war was fought to protect states' rights. And also, basically every state that seceded to the Confederacy did so with a big fiery speech about how important it was to be able to keep owning slaves. It requires deliberate, willful ignorance to pretend the civil war was about anything but slavery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Entropic posted:And also, basically every state that seceded to the Confederacy did so with a big fiery speech about how important it was to be able to keep owning slaves. It requires deliberate, willful ignorance to pretend the civil war was about anything but slavery. Even when they say "it was economic reasons" the only real counter to that is "the south never modernized their industry because they had slave labor"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Entropic posted:And also, basically every state that seceded to the Confederacy did so with a big fiery speech about how important it was to be able to keep owning slaves. It requires deliberate, willful ignorance to pretend the civil war was about anything but slavery. well yes but that doesn't negate the argument that the abolition of slavery by federal mandate (which never actually loving happened, that's also worth mentioning) would have been an overreach of the tenth amendment, and that therefore secession was necessary to protect states' rights. I mean there are plenty of legitimate points that do, two of which I've just mentioned, that just isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
My favorite quote about the civil war. I don't know if it was by a goon but I heard it from a good anyway: those who know nothing about the civil war think it was about slavery. Those who know a little about the civil war know it was about state's rights. Those who know a lot about the civil war know it was about slavery
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Reminder that slack jawed shitkicker cliven bundy is a self proclaimed rabble rouser who don't let no gubmint tell him what to do and he literally said blacks were happier as slaves. Him and his sons can rectally feed each other Carolina reapers
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
i think it was cyrano4747 or something like him because i think of the same line every time im in a thread talking about the whys of the civil war
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:My favorite quote about the civil war. I don't know if it was by a goon but I heard it from a good anyway: those who know nothing about the civil war think it was about slavery. Those who know a little about the civil war know it was about state's rights. Those who know a lot about the civil war know it was about slavery Beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:My favorite quote about the civil war. I don't know if it was by a goon but I heard it from a good anyway: those who know nothing about the civil war think it was about slavery. Those who know a little about the civil war know it was about state's rights. Those who know a lot about the civil war know it was about slavery That's like my favorite quote to use. Even in scenarios not about the Civil War
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
A history teacher I know loved to trot out that part of the reason the South went to war was that the federal government wasn't enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act to their liking. It was a lack of overreaching federal government interference that caused South Carolina to secede.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alangardner/status/694572212162985984
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
cumshitter posted:A history teacher I know loved to trot out that part of the reason the South went to war was that the federal government wasn't enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act to their liking. It was a lack of overreaching federal government interference that caused South Carolina to secede. which wasnt being enforced also because of (northern) states rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
as stupid as the holdouts are im sorry to say that they've stayed long enough to actually be inspirational so long as they dont kill each other if the feds kill them, theyre heroes if they're arrested, they're still heroes gg its already over
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I don't know, why don't you go re read the thread and let us know how it happened im just here to find out when the shitkickin yokels get blatted i dont give two tugs of a dead dogs dick about some e-cable access call-in show or the goons that tviv it pls keep comms clear *crrrxht*
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
FuhrerHat posted:as stupid as the holdouts are im sorry to say that they've stayed long enough to actually be inspirational so long as they dont kill each other wrong. whichever one of those happens they will be completely forgotten within a matter of weeks. vague references of them will remain attached to republican talking points but completely divorced from anything resembling the reality of what happened, a la the benghazi attacks. their "sacrifice" will ultimately amount to nothing and will inspire exactly zero change in anything except the words on fox news teleprompters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Entropic posted:And also, basically every state that seceded to the Confederacy did so with a big fiery speech about how important it was to be able to keep owning slaves. It requires deliberate, willful ignorance to pretend the civil war was about anything but slavery. The specific conflict being battled over was "do states have the right to secede". It's just that the whole reason for that to be even discussed was slavery slavery slavery. Or if you want to be even more specific, white people being unable to deal with the idea that they weren't inherently nobler/better than black people, the economic issues are just a backdrop to the horror of considering all men to be equal
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Cliven (Let me tell you one more thing I know about the negro) Bundy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5LwTGDrzv8 lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
yeah sure they had a bunch of slaves and they enslaved free blacks and massacred black troops and they wanted to build a slave empire in south america and they repeatedly said it was because of slavery but read between the lines, what were they really trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The specific conflict being battled over was "do states have the right to secede". this is an asinine distinction to make. it doesn't add anything useful to any discourse on the conflict, and the question was already spurious in 1860 because the future of any republican state that can fracture any time the population has a significant disagreement should make the answer immediately obvious to anyone who honestly considers it as anything other than rhetoric for more than about a second. theflyingorc posted:Or if you want to be even more specific, white people being unable to deal with the idea that they weren't inherently nobler/better than black people, the economic issues are just a backdrop to the horror of considering all men to be equal lol, people in the free states were still foaming at the mouth racist and it was commonly believed that white and black people weren't even biologically related, and many who accepted that they are still insisted that black people were some distinct breed inherently more aggressive and less intelligent and civilised. they just didn't think any person should be allowed to own another person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:this is an asinine distinction to make. it doesn't add anything useful to any discourse on the conflict, and the question was already spurious in 1860 because the future of any republican state that can fracture any time the population has a significant disagreement should make the answer immediately obvious to anyone who honestly considers it as anything other than rhetoric for more than about a second. quote:lol, people in the free states were still foaming at the mouth racist and it was commonly believed that white and black people weren't even biologically related, and many who accepted that they are still insisted that black people were some distinct breed inherently more aggressive and less intelligent and civilised. they just didn't think any person should be allowed to own another person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:wrong. whichever one of those happens they will be completely forgotten within a matter of weeks. vague references of them will remain attached to republican talking points but completely divorced from anything resembling the reality of what happened, a la the benghazi attacks. their "sacrifice" will ultimately amount to nothing and will inspire exactly zero change in anything except the words on fox news teleprompters. well.. heroes to other 'patriots' See Related: Waco Siege Ruby Ridge Walmartyr Revolution
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Kids don't cost that much money if you do it on the cheap, but he was probably saving for cars and college for them. I assume your kidding but on the off chance you are not; most state DCS actually pay for the kids to go to a state college (or at least make it pretty affordable for kids in the system to go) as long as they stay in the system to 21. Unless he outright adopted them, which he clearly didn't because adopting means losing the sweet government money. Also most foster parents get about $600~$800 a month per kid (varies with age too). How is this guy getting so much money per kid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Bedevere posted:I assume your kidding but on the off chance you are not; most state DCS actually pay for the kids to go to a state college (or at least make it pretty affordable for kids in the system to go) as long as they stay in the system to 21. Unless he outright adopted them, which he clearly didn't because adopting means losing the sweet government money. Also most foster parents get about $600~$800 a month per kid (varies with age too). How is this guy getting so much money per kid? $800 * 11 * 12 = 105600? Your numbers line up with what Tarpman said pretty closely?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:$800 * 11 * 12 = 105600? Sorry thought he had 8 kids....I wasn't tracking his child slavery ring closely enough I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:well yes but that doesn't negate the argument that the abolition of slavery by federal mandate (which never actually loving happened, that's also worth mentioning) would have been an overreach of the tenth amendment, and that therefore secession was necessary to protect states' rights. Can you define "necessary"? I mean there have been countless times where the federal government overreached with respect to the 10th amendment, and SCOTUS slapped them down (or didn't). Surely you wouldn't say secession was necessary to protect states' rights in all these cases? If not, then why in this case? The only difference is that slavery was a really big deal to Southerners and these things aren't. Which seems to bring us back to the original point that this is all about the importance of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
FuhrerHat posted:well.. heroes to other 'patriots' Yeah, I predict this bullshit will make exactly as much difference in society as those events did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
McNerd posted:Can you define "necessary"? Well presumably if the Federal government had actually tried to unilaterally end slavery throughout the entire country (which never happened, as I noted) it could have been challenged in court, like you suggest. But that never happened, not outside of the imaginations of Lost Causers. Since the response to this imaginary usurpation was secession instead of a legal challenge (hard to challenge a law in court when it doesn't exist), I'm guessing that the scenario played in their imagination is American soldiers riding through the south summarily executing slave-owners and unleashing their negro chattel to rape white women with Abraham Lincoln's approval. For the record, the tenth amendment is one of the least-cited, I think second only to the third. Even when the courts have ruled that something the federal government has done is unlawful, they have usually done so on grounds other than the tenth. So no, not "countless" times, not in courts in general and definitely not before the SCOTUS. TacticalUrbanHomo has issued a correction as of 19:14 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:Yeah, I predict this bullshit will make exactly as much difference in society as those events did. lol waco and ruby ridge led to the OKC bombing you goof
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:Yeah, I predict this bullshit will make exactly as much difference in society as those events did. perpetually generating more bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:lol waco and ruby ridge led to the OKC bombing you goof Idiotic terrorists are going to terrorist anyway regardless of their motive. Unless you want to ride the change all the way back to what started Waco, then what started whatever that, etc. If not the government it would have been something else McVeigh would have been all mad about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:52
|
|
